Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersFidel Miller
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Fidel Miller
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Fidel Miller.

Last recorded decision Jun 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 72% across 97 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer97 decisions72% approvalSave
Enfield · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
97
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%61%202177%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate72% · 34th of 63
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports50 officer reports parsed
52%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
24%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
2%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
85%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Enfield's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Enfield reports. Attention, not stance.

Privacy & overlooking
1.52× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.23× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.21× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.15× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.06× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Fidel Miller on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“which is an important consideration in light of the Housing delivery test and the current status of the Council having to apply the presumption in favour of approving sustainable development and the tilted balance”

21/01676/FUL

“Due to the layout of the site and location of the trees, it is considered the removal of the 5 trees is warranted. However, as required by policy, these trees must be replaced with suitable trees on the site”

21/01676/FUL

Measured from 50 published Enfield officer reports written by this officer, with recited policy boilerplate stripped before any counting. These describe how this officer works and writes — they are not outcome predictions. Every quote is from a named public report.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 50 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
12 times cited
CP30MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE BUILT AND OPEN ENVIRONMENT All developments and interventions in the public realm must be high quality and design-l
10 times cited
DMD37
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
22
73%
14
79%
11
45%
11
73%
8
88%
8
63%
7
43%
7
100%
5
100%
2
50%
1
100%
1
100%
22
73%
14
79%
11
45%
Show all 12 rows
11
73%
8
88%
8
63%
7
43%
7
100%
5
100%
2
50%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
22/00676/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-10-04
22/01049/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-10-01
22/00676/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-10-04
22/01049/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-10-01
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 97 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Expanse Partnership
2. Carter Surveying Associates
3. Barton Willmore LLP
4. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
At a glance
OfficerFidel Miller
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications97 (2020–22)
Approval rate72%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Enfield planning register and published decision notices, 2020–22. · methodology
  2. [2]Appeal overturn and decision-time benchmarks — Planning Inspectorate (PINS) appeal decisions and application date pairs; not yet computed per officer, shown as a dash until they are. · PINS appeals casework
  3. [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Enfield decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 50 published Enfield officer reports written by this officer, recited policy boilerplate stripped before counting; disposition text coded from their own reasoning with every quote machine-verified verbatim. Descriptive of how they work — not outcome predictions.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.